United States v. Cruikshank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section needs to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article with relevant internal links. (May 2008) |
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)[1] was an important United States Supreme Court decision in United States constitutional law, one of the earliest to deal with the application of the Bill of Rights to state governments following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Contents |
[edit] Background
On Easter Day 1873, an armed white militia attacked Republican freedmen who had gathered at the Colfax, Louisiana courthouse to protect it from a Democratic takeover. Although some of the African Americans were armed and initially defended themselves, estimates were that 100-280 were killed, most of them following surrender, and 50 that night who were being held as prisoner. This was in the tense aftermath of months of uncertainty following the disputed gubernatorial election of November 1872, when two parties declared victory at the state and local levels. The election was still unsettled in the spring, and both Republican Fusionists had certified their own slates for the local offices of sheriff, parish justice of the peace, etc., in Grant Parish, where Colfax was the parish seat. Federal troops reinforced the election of the Republican governor.
Some members of the white mob were indicted and charged under the Enforcement Act of 1870. Among other provisions, the law made it a felony for two or more people conspired to deprive anyone of his constitutional rights.
Given the disproportionate rate of black fatalities, historians have come to call the event the Colfax Massacre. It was long called the Colfax Riot in local white communities, which suggests how they told the story - an event arising because blacks were out of control.
[edit] Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and (neither directly supported nor directly contradicted by modern Supreme Court rulings) that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them, the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals.
[edit] Dissent
Mr. Justice Clifford offered the dissenting opinion. He found that sec. 5 of the 14th amendment did, in fact, invest the federal government with the power to legislate the actions of individuals who restrict the constitutional rights of others.
[edit] Aftermath
In the short term, African Americans in the South were left to the mercy of increasingly hostile state governments, who did little to protect them. When white Democrats regained power in the late 1870s, they passed legislation making voter registration and elections more complicated, effectively stripping many blacks from voter rolls. Paramilitary violence continued to suppress African-American voting. From 1890 to 1908, ten of the eleven former Confederate states passed disfranchising constitutions or amendments, with provisions for poll taxes, residency requirements, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses that effectively disfranchised most black voters and many poor whites. The disfranchisement also meant that in most cases blacks could not serve on juries or hold any political office, which were restricted to voters.
Although significant portions of Cruikshank have been overturned by later decisions, it is still relied upon with some authority in other portions.
The Cruikshank case effectively enabled political parties' use of paramilitary forces.
